Morning journal and courier. [volume] (New Haven [Conn.]) 1848-1894, 1887-02-04
Is Rubbing a Necessity or a Luxurye

From the London Timesl
Before Lord Chief Justice Coleridge and
Mr.. Justice Day, in the Queens bench divi-
sion Thursday, January 18th, the appeal in
Canham against Howard was heard. This
case reopened the question, which has for SO
many years been vexed question in courts
of law and even in the House of Lords, as
to the authority CT wife to pledge her hus-
bands credit.
1t had arisen in this way: The plaintiff
had sued Captain Howard in this court for a
sum claimed by him as due for medical rub
bing, called massage, to his wife, Lady Con-
stance Howard. The claim being only for
thirty pounds, it was remitted to the County
court for trial, and on the trial the defense
set up was that the lady had separate al
lowance of two hundred pounds year, and
that her husband had forbidden her to
pledge his credit, and on this the lady cor
roborated her husband. There did not ap-
pear to have been any medical evidence
that the rubbing was medically necessary;
but the jury heard the lady. The judge left
to them certain questions Gin substance, it
was stated, those put in the celebrated case
of Jolly against Rees, III the time of Chief
Justice Er]e many years ago), in answer to
which they found that the defendant had
prohibited his wife from pledging his credit,
that the plaintiff did not give credit to the
wife on her separate estate, that the rub
bing was necessary, and that the wife had
not the means of paying for it. On these
findings the Judge gave judgment for the
plaintiff for thirty pounds.
Mr.. Bsines, on behalf of the defendant,
moved for rule to set aside the Judgment
on the ground that the findings virtually
came to a verdict for the defendant in point
of law. The questions, he said, put to the
jury were substantially those put in Jolly
against Rees, and the decision of the House
of Lords in the more recent case of Deben-
aam against Mellon was to the like effect
that lady with separate allowance could
not pledge her husbands credit.
Lord Coleridge-Is it the law of England
that wife may starve if her allowance is
not suficients
Mr. Baines-No, the courts have distin-
guished between actual necessaries OF life
and other things.
Lord Celeridge-f rubbing is necessary to
life, is is not necessary of lifes
Mr.. Baines-There was no evidence that it
was medically necessary.
Lord Coleridge-The jury so found.
Mr.. Baines-Without evidence.
Lord Coleridge-Must a wife die for want
of medicine if she has not the means of OBJ
tanning it?
Mr.. Baines-That is not the present case;
there was no medical evidence of necessity.
In Debenham against Mellon Is, Appeal cases)
it was held that even to necessaries a wife
with an allowance cannot pledge her hus-
bands credit; and Lord Selborne said {:
Marriage raises presumption of liability,
but it may be rebutted, and it may be shown
| that there is no authority except in the case
| of necessity"
Lord Coleridge-Except in the case of ne
| cessity.
Mr.. Baines-But in the present case there
Of, Nv, fhora 10 T7.,
| implied authority where the wife is properly
maintained.
The court granted a rule nisi to set aside
| the verdict